Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the municipality’s entitlement to amenity land surrendered as a condition of conversion from a no-development zone to residential use. Landowners who accepted the benefit and purchasers aware of the layout could not successfully challenge that condition after about fourteen years. The Court distinguished compulsory open space, which remained for plot holders’ use, from amenity space. It permitted an application offering substitute land to protect old trees.
Issues
- Whether the landowners and purchasers could belatedly challenge the accepted conversion condition.
- Whether amenity space was governed by the same ownership and use restrictions as compulsory open space.
- Whether substitution could be considered to preserve century-old trees.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaTo protect century-old trees, the Court permitted a representation offering alternative land on the same road of the same or approximately the same area, for consideration by the municipality according to law. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Held
- The landowners accepted conversion from no-development to residential use, obtained layout approval and sold the plots under that arrangement. After pursuing civil and revenue proceedings, they could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the beneficial notification and its accepted conditions; their delayed challenge also attracted election and laches principles on these facts. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Purchasers knew the sanctioned layout reserved separate open space and required transfer of amenity land to the municipality without charge. Their challenge after approximately fourteen years likewise ought to have been rejected for delay and laches. (¶ 20)
- Compulsory open space belonged to the plot owners under the applicable development regulations and had to remain open for their use. The Court expressly preserved that position. Amenity space was distinct: its transfer was an accepted condition of the beneficial zoning conversion and was implemented by agreements. The High Court erred in treating both categories alike. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Requiring free transfer of land for public utility as the counterpart of permission for beneficial development and subdivision was supported by the cited precedent. The challenge to the amenity-space condition and municipal development decision could not succeed on this record. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The alternative offer did not itself effect a land exchange or give an unconditional right to retain amenity land. The owners or plot holders could propose comparable land on the same road, and the municipality was to consider the representation in accordance with law. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned common High Court judgment set aside and plot holders’ writ petition dismissed, with the express open-space findings preserved. Liberty granted to seek consideration of substitute amenity land to protect old trees.